Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Vehicular Cycling (VC) (http://www.bikeforums.net/vehicular-cycling-vc/)
-   -   What would you ask an LAB staff person at a conference? (http://www.bikeforums.net/vehicular-cycling-vc/851511-what-would-you-ask-lab-staff-person-conference.html)

esther-L 10-09-12 09:00 PM

What would you ask an LAB staff person at a conference?
 
I am attending a conference soon where someone on staff of LAB will be speaking. I don't know if there will be time for Q&A or not.

If you had this chance, what question would you ask the LAB staff member?

Thanks!

bandit1990 10-10-12 05:06 PM

Your question is so open-ended, you are not going to get a response. How about "what are you doing to promote cycling in an urban area?" Or maybe, "If I'm supposed to share the lane with motorists, why won't they share it with me?". How about "why do cars hate me?", or "Please provide a good reason for lane-sharing". The rest is up to you...

The Human Car 10-10-12 08:32 PM

My main gripe is why doesn't the Bicycle Friendly State Program ranking reflect how well a given state is in accommodating cyclists?

There are lots of answers (justifications) on why that is but I personally think they are all wrong. The short version is LAB's criteria only measures (inaccurately I might add) the POTENTIAL for a state to achieve bicycle friendless not to what degree the state is ACTUALLY committing to its policies (and other areas as well.) Or i.e. LAB does NOT look at how easy it is for a state to overlook its own bike friendly policies.

My main suggestion is to get rid of the yes and no questions and replace them with a scale from 1 to 10.

esther-L 10-10-12 08:39 PM

I am thinking of something along the lines of "is there any evidence that bike lanes with green paint or plastic pole separators actually increase safety?"

Bekologist 10-11-12 04:51 AM

you should be able to answer that yourself.


Physical separation with barriers and colored paint countermeasures reduce traffic conflicts.

John Forester 10-11-12 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bekologist (Post 14829383)
you should be able to answer that yourself.


Physical separation with barriers and colored paint countermeasures reduce traffic conflicts.

Bek's claim is quantitative, referring to numbers of conflicts. OK Bek. Prove your claim by reference to traffic statistics.

genec 10-11-12 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Forester (Post 14830170)
Bek's claim is quantitative, referring to numbers of conflicts. OK Bek. Prove your claim by reference to traffic statistics.

Since the stats only show deaths and not actual conflicts, I am doubt such stats exist.

hagen2456 10-11-12 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by genec (Post 14831500)
Since the stats only show deaths and not actual conflicts, I am doubt such stats exist.

The stats I know of (but can't provide at the moment as my computer is just recovering from a major virus attack) suggest that the number of conflicts (registered as minor accidents) may go up, but the death rate goes down.

Bekologist 10-12-12 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Forester (Post 14830170)
Bek's claim is quantitative, referring to numbers of conflicts. OK Bek. Prove your claim by reference to traffic statistics.


meh.

2012 NIH journal - New York City bikelanes do not lead to greater conflicts

-that study wasn't even adjusted for the increasing ridership in NYC that has tripled in the last decade as well)

and this one, a much larger assay,

a 2009 meta analysis of 23 bicycle infrastructure studies



both provide compelling suggestions, if not cut and dried, double blind polar-bonded correlation :lol: that



"Evidence is beginning to accumulate that purpose-built bicycle-specific facilities reduce crashes and injuries among cyclists."

I'm sure the flat-earth society of bicycling drivers won't be able to accept facilities drive bicyclist safety, but their loss. If a person wants to look like a rube at a bicycling conference, all they have to do is ask if separated class bike facilities or painted pavement enhancements improve rider safety.

John Forester 10-12-12 10:51 AM

http://www.bikeforums.net/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by John Forester http://www.bikeforums.net/images/but...post-right.png
Bek's claim is quantitative, referring to numbers of conflicts. OK Bek. Prove your claim by reference to traffic statistics.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Bekologist (Post 14833217)
meh.

2012 NIH journal - New York City bikelanes do not lead to greater conflicts

-that study wasn't even adjusted for the increasing ridership in NYC that has tripled in the last decade as well)

and this one, a much larger assay,

a 2009 meta analysis of 23 bicycle infrastructure studies



both provide compelling suggestions, if not cut and dried, double blind polar-bonded correlation :lol: that



"Evidence is beginning to accumulate that purpose-built bicycle-specific facilities reduce crashes and injuries among cyclists."

I'm sure the flat-earth society of bicycling drivers won't be able to accept facilities drive bicyclist safety, but their loss. If a person wants to look like a rube at a bicycling conference, all they have to do is ask if separated class bike facilities or painted pavement enhancements improve rider safety.

Bek, you have not answered the challenge to your claim that "Physical separation with barriers and colored paint countermeasures reduce traffic conflicts." Neither of the sources which you provide contains any data on such conflicts, let alone comparing them with other facilities. You made this claim. Therefore you should provide the supporting evidence.

hagen2456 10-12-12 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Forester (Post 14834318)
...you should provide the supporting evidence.

To be fair, Bek didn't provide exact numbers. However, he did provide "circumstantial" evidence that strongly supports his claim.

John Forester 10-12-12 02:20 PM

Bek, you have not answered the challenge to your claim that "Physical separation with barriers and colored paint countermeasures reduce traffic conflicts." Neither of the sources which you provide contains any data on such conflicts, let alone comparing them with other facilities. You made this claim. Therefore you should provide the supporting evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hagen2456 (Post 14834793)
To be fair, Bek didn't provide exact numbers. However, he did provide "circumstantial" evidence that strongly supports his claim.

This is not so.
1: There is no count of the number of conflicts encountered. Nor, for that matter, any definition of conflict.
2: There has never been any analysis or demonstration of how it is, what is the mechanism, by which these facilities either reduce conflicts or reduce car-bike collisions.
3: There has never been a demonstration that changes in the general rate of car-bike collisions have been largely attributable to the presence of these facilities.

Only for those who have the presupposing superstition that these facilities have these results does the evidence seem reasonable.

Bekologist 10-12-12 05:31 PM

:roflmao: the evidence is all from all over the place :roflmao:

about green emphasis zones

Green lanes increase ridership, and safety. Separated infrastructure has long been shown to be safer than roadway cycling.

.......but to a person dedicated to marginalizing progress towards normalizing the bicycle as everyday transport, of course there's aspersions to be cast.

:roflmao:

John Forester 10-12-12 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bekologist (Post 14835725)
:roflmao: the evidence is all from all over the place :roflmao:

about green emphasis zones

Green lanes increase ridership, and safety. Separated infrastructure has long been shown to be safer than roadway cycling.

.......but to a person dedicated to marginalizing progress towards normalizing the bicycle as everyday transport, of course there's aspersions to be cast.

:roflmao:

You repeat the claim, Bek, in slightly other words. In the study you referenced, NYC claims 34% reduction in crashes on Columbus Ave. Just how many of these were crashes for cyclists? Just how did the green paint contribute to whatever change occurred? The information was not shown in that publicity pamphlet.

You repeat the claim that "separated infrastructure" has long been shown to be safer than roadway cycling. What studies do you offer to support your claim, Bek?

hagen2456 10-12-12 06:48 PM

Quote:

This is not so.
1: There is no count of the number of conflicts encountered. Nor, for that matter, any definition of conflict.
2: There has never been any analysis or demonstration of how it is, what is the mechanism, by which these facilities either reduce conflicts or reduce car-bike collisions.
3: There has never been a demonstration that changes in the general rate of car-bike collisions have been largely attributable to the presence of these facilities.

Only for those who have the presupposing superstition that these facilities have these results does the evidence seem reasonable.
This must be the most stupid OR the most mindbogglingly manipulative answer you have yet made to one of my posts here.

I am, of course, absolutely unable to answer back in any way. I might start pointing out your total failure to address the issue I bring up and your formalistic ramblings about things that are irrelevant to my post, but that wouldn't cover even a small fraction of the mass of idiocy contained in your text, so it's futile to even start.

Thoroughly ******.

Bekologist 10-12-12 07:08 PM

4 Attachment(s)
http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=278095I'm not sure why the OP doesn't think paint emphasis, or barrier separated lanes, don't make cycling safer.

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=278096

I think it's long been established paint and emphasis zones enhance bicyclist safety. Studied in test cities, proven effective, and allowed by the federal highway administration.

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=278097

is this comedy hour at the flat earth club? people screaming and yelling about the lack of proof about designs allowed by the federal highway administration? These guys don't move lightly in adding design enhancements for bicyclists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Federal Highway Administration 2011
The FHWA has issued an Interim Approval for the use of green coloring in bike lanes. Citing multiple experiments that demonstrated positive operational effects for both bicycle riders and other road users, with no notable negative effects, this approval allows states to apply for approval to use coloring in bike lanes and bike lane extension, and States may request approval for all jurisdictions in that State. This Interim Approval does not make the use of green-colored pavement mandatory.

FHWA press release

I like the way San Francisco uses barrier separation along Market Street.... i think there's continued improvements there.

it's funny to see bicyclists complaining these types of enhancements don't improve cyclist safety...

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=278098

hilarious! "the barriers and the green paint, the effects aren't proven"..... :roflmao:


I think a good question to ask a LAB representative is

"What specifically is the LAB doing in my city to create more bicyclist friendly conditions?

"Are there any programs being introduced by the LAB that provide a script of local level asks that can be taken to city or county government agencies to increase viability of bicycling here?"

John Forester 10-12-12 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bekologist (Post 14835971)
http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=278095I'm not sure why the OP doesn't think paint emphasis, or barrier separated lanes, don't make cycling safer.

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=278096

I think it's long been established paint and emphasis zones enhance bicyclist safety. Studied in test cities, proven effective, and allowed by the federal highway administration.

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=278097

is this comedy hour at the flat earth club? people screaming and yelling about the lack of proof about designs allowed by the federal highway administration? These guys don't move lightly in adding design enhancements for bicyclists.



FHWA press release

I like the way San Francisco uses barrier separation along Market Street.... i think there's continued improvements there.

it's funny to see bicyclists complaining these types of enhancements don't improve cyclist safety...

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=278098

hilarious! "the barriers and the green paint, the effects aren't proven"..... :roflmao:


I think a good question to ask a LAB representative is

"What specifically is the LAB doing in my city to create more bicyclist friendly conditions?

"Are there any programs being introduced by the LAB that provide a script of local level asks that can be taken to city or county government agencies to increase viability of bicycling here?"

"Positive operational effects", whatever these undefined things might be. If they had better information, I think that they would broadcast the knowledge. As it is, we have no more than propaganda, which is only too common in this field.

Bekologist 10-13-12 04:49 AM

Wait, the federal highway administration's reliance on several studies on green paint is propoganda because they summarized countermeasures as 'positive operational effects'? the positive operational effects are detailed in each study, John. :rolleyes: Playing first chair in the obtuse section again, wot?
:roflmao:

it's more this, FIFY



Quote:

Originally Posted by John Forester (Post 14836192)
As it is, I have no more than propaganda.....




I'd imagine if the original poster wants to troll for laughs she could ask at the conference, "I've heard on the internet that green lanes and barrier separation countermeasures are not safety driven, but are nothing more than a propaganda campaign- any comments?"

John Forester 03-10-13 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bekologist (Post 14836767)
Wait, the federal highway administration's reliance on several studies on green paint is propoganda because they summarized countermeasures as 'positive operational effects'? the positive operational effects are detailed in each study, John. :rolleyes: Playing first chair in the obtuse section again, wot?
:roflmao:

it's more this, FIFY








I'd imagine if the original poster wants to troll for laughs she could ask at the conference, "I've heard on the internet that green lanes and barrier separation countermeasures are not safety driven, but are nothing more than a propaganda campaign- any comments?"

We are presented with what are supposed to be serious traffic-engineering studies, for which the only conclusion is that "positive operational effects" were observed. That is, nothing was observed that could be described and quantified. Science since the time of Galileo has demanded accurate descriptions and quantitative measurements; what we get for bikeway studies ain't science, but no more than propaganda by advocates of suspect scientific reputation.

genec 03-11-13 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Forester (Post 15369466)
We are presented with what are supposed to be serious traffic-engineering studies, for which the only conclusion is that "positive operational effects" were observed. That is, nothing was observed that could be described and quantified. Science since the time of Galileo has demanded accurate descriptions and quantitative measurements; what we get for bikeway studies ain't science, but no more than propaganda by advocates of suspect scientific reputation.

And for decisions made for roadway modification for motor vehicle use, do you also get "accurate descriptions and quantitative measurements?" I'd love to see the "quantitative measurements" for the proposal of the 1956 Highway Act.

John Forester 03-11-13 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by genec (Post 15373103)
And for decisions made for roadway modification for motor vehicle use, do you also get "accurate descriptions and quantitative measurements?" I'd love to see the "quantitative measurements" for the proposal of the 1956 Highway Act.

Please be specific. What were the roadway modifications studied in this act of 1956, and in what way did these lack scientific substantiation?

Bekologist 03-12-13 03:13 AM

Like i said earlier,

if the original poster was interested in trolling for laughs she could ask at the conference, "I've heard on the internet that green lanes and barrier separation countermeasures are not safety driven, but are nothing more than a propaganda campaign- any comments?"


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:13 AM.